4 ms·

XEmacs 21.5.35 “kohlrabi” is released

79 points by dmm 3y ago

Tomte 3y ago
Wait, what? > This release is the first beta release since 2013. Ah, that explains it. XEmacs was my choice when getting into Usenet (for Gnus), because the character set and Windows support was much better than that of GNU Emacs. I don't really miss XEmacs, but it's always cool when old programs still get some love.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  In a past life for a short while (around 2006/2008'ish I'd say) I used XEmacs instead of Emacs because XEmacs could do one thing Emacs couldn't: real-time "Relax NG" schema validation. It was kinda a big deal for me back then as I was working, IIRC, on DocBook documents which were validated using a Relax NG schema. > I don't really miss XEmacs, but it's always cool when old programs still get some love. I agree. But then I'm using Emacs daily. I'd miss XEmacs much more if I hadn't the opportunity to use Emacs! Still, as you sa, it's good to see XEmacs getting some love.
  - davidpolberger 3y ago
    You're probably referring to the wonderful nXML mode, which has been a part of stock Emacs for years now: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/nxml-mode.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/nxml-mod...
    - TacticalCoder 3y ago
      > You're probably referring to the wonderful nXML mode But wasn't there an issue where early nxml mode for Emacs would not support the Relax NG using the XML syntax? I vaguely remember the compact Relax NG syntax being supported but not the XML one. And for whatever reason that XML syntax for Relax NG was supported under XEmacs. It was really a long time ago so my memory is very fussy but something like that. Since then I switched back to Emacs and I do use nxml-mode (I don't use Relax NG anymore though).
HeckFeck 3y ago
The web page still has a statement on Year 2000 compliance. Quaint.
- mrpopo 3y ago
  If you follow through to the GNU statement, it says this: > This 32-bit count will overflow in 2038; but there will be no problem in that year, because by then all systems will have redefined time_t to be a 64-bit integer. [x] doubt
  - HeckFeck 3y ago
    - Sent from my IPv6-only router, 2038
jmclnx 3y ago
Congratulations, Xemacs was my main editor in the FreeBSD 3.x/4.x days. But GNU Emacs caught up and development stopped. IIRC it was UTF-8 issues that froze it. I will need to take a peek at Xemacs and I hope to see it move on to a release.
hiergiltdiestfu 3y ago
Kohlrabi. 'nuff said.
- mnw21cam 3y ago
  Delicious. I have one nearing harvesting size out in the garden right now. They do look like aliens from outer space though.
stockerta 3y ago
What year is it?! This is quite the suprise.
NoGravitas 3y ago
I used XEmacs for that brief period when it supported antialiased text, but GNU Emacs didn't. I'm glad there are still people using and working on XEmacs.
- mbork_pl 3y ago
  > I'm glad there are still people using and working on XEmacs. Asking seriously: why? I remember that maintaining XEmacs compatibility in some Emacs packages (I think it was AUCTeX, not sure) was an additional burden on the maintainers. Given that the userbase of XEmacs is probably very, very small, it would make sense to divert the efforts here towards GNU Emacs, no? The only reason I can think of to think that it's good that XEmacs is still maintained is that one does not think FSF does TRT politically and/or technically. Is that your reason?
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    No, not at all. I just appreciate its uniqueness. I don't think elisp package maintainers should spend any effort on XEmacs compatibility.
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      I see. Given the low number of contributors and large needs... let me disagree.
rurban 3y ago
Since rms influence on GNU Emacs got smaller, XEmacs features and much more got added into GNU emacs and people switched. Nowadays I see no reason to use this old dinosaur
mhd 3y ago
Can't say that I expected this. Wasn't there some fork that also stopped development years ago (SXEmacs, maybe)? I remember using XEmacs more in my early Linux days, I think it did color syntax highlighting in the terminal earlier than GNUmacs 19.xx… If surprised come in threes, I'd be hard-pressed what to nominate for the remaining two, especiall now that Duke Nukem ain't a meme anymore. A usable Hurd? A new WordStar? An expandable, consumer level desktop Mac? Perl with built-in OO?
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  Winds of Winter
- alekq 3y ago
  CLISP update
- NikkiA 3y ago
  >A new WordStar? I'd settle for zde17 A new wordstar would be so far from the original ideals that it'd be useless.
pjmlp 3y ago
Nice to see XEmacs still around. Back in 1995 it allowed me some confort on UNIX systems, away from Borland IDEs.

79 points by dmm 3y ago

Wait, what? > This release is the first beta release since 2013. Ah, that explains it. XEmacs was my choice when getting into Usenet (for Gnus), because the character set and Windows support was much better than that of GNU Emacs. I don't really miss XEmacs, but it's always cool when old programs still get some love.

TacticalCoder 3y ago
In a past life for a short while (around 2006/2008'ish I'd say) I used XEmacs instead of Emacs because XEmacs could do one thing Emacs couldn't: real-time "Relax NG" schema validation. It was kinda a big deal for me back then as I was working, IIRC, on DocBook documents which were validated using a Relax NG schema. > I don't really miss XEmacs, but it's always cool when old programs still get some love. I agree. But then I'm using Emacs daily. I'd miss XEmacs much more if I hadn't the opportunity to use Emacs! Still, as you sa, it's good to see XEmacs getting some love.
- davidpolberger 3y ago
  You're probably referring to the wonderful nXML mode, which has been a part of stock Emacs for years now: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/nxml-mode.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/nxml-mod...
  - TacticalCoder 3y ago
    > You're probably referring to the wonderful nXML mode But wasn't there an issue where early nxml mode for Emacs would not support the Relax NG using the XML syntax? I vaguely remember the compact Relax NG syntax being supported but not the XML one. And for whatever reason that XML syntax for Relax NG was supported under XEmacs. It was really a long time ago so my memory is very fussy but something like that. Since then I switched back to Emacs and I do use nxml-mode (I don't use Relax NG anymore though).

HeckFeck 3y ago

The web page still has a statement on Year 2000 compliance. Quaint.

mrpopo 3y ago
If you follow through to the GNU statement, it says this: > This 32-bit count will overflow in 2038; but there will be no problem in that year, because by then all systems will have redefined time_t to be a 64-bit integer. [x] doubt
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  - Sent from my IPv6-only router, 2038

jmclnx 3y ago

Congratulations, Xemacs was my main editor in the FreeBSD 3.x/4.x days. But GNU Emacs caught up and development stopped. IIRC it was UTF-8 issues that froze it. I will need to take a peek at Xemacs and I hope to see it move on to a release.

hiergiltdiestfu 3y ago

Kohlrabi. 'nuff said.

mnw21cam 3y ago
Delicious. I have one nearing harvesting size out in the garden right now. They do look like aliens from outer space though.

stockerta 3y ago

What year is it?! This is quite the suprise.

NoGravitas 3y ago

I used XEmacs for that brief period when it supported antialiased text, but GNU Emacs didn't. I'm glad there are still people using and working on XEmacs.

mbork_pl 3y ago
> I'm glad there are still people using and working on XEmacs. Asking seriously: why? I remember that maintaining XEmacs compatibility in some Emacs packages (I think it was AUCTeX, not sure) was an additional burden on the maintainers. Given that the userbase of XEmacs is probably very, very small, it would make sense to divert the efforts here towards GNU Emacs, no? The only reason I can think of to think that it's good that XEmacs is still maintained is that one does not think FSF does TRT politically and/or technically. Is that your reason?
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  No, not at all. I just appreciate its uniqueness. I don't think elisp package maintainers should spend any effort on XEmacs compatibility.
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    I see. Given the low number of contributors and large needs... let me disagree.

rurban 3y ago

Since rms influence on GNU Emacs got smaller, XEmacs features and much more got added into GNU emacs and people switched. Nowadays I see no reason to use this old dinosaur

mhd 3y ago

Can't say that I expected this. Wasn't there some fork that also stopped development years ago (SXEmacs, maybe)? I remember using XEmacs more in my early Linux days, I think it did color syntax highlighting in the terminal earlier than GNUmacs 19.xx… If surprised come in threes, I'd be hard-pressed what to nominate for the remaining two, especiall now that Duke Nukem ain't a meme anymore. A usable Hurd? A new WordStar? An expandable, consumer level desktop Mac? Perl with built-in OO?

School-Cotton 3y ago
Winds of Winter
alekq 3y ago
CLISP update
NikkiA 3y ago
>A new WordStar? I'd settle for zde17 A new wordstar would be so far from the original ideals that it'd be useless.

pjmlp 3y ago

Nice to see XEmacs still around. Back in 1995 it allowed me some confort on UNIX systems, away from Borland IDEs.